RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

u/s 271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

282(1) of the Act of 1961 and rule 127(1) of the\nIncome-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service\nof notice and orders which read as follows :\n8. In view of the above, it is essential that before any action is taken,\ncommunication of the notice must be done in terms of the provisions

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1) of the\nIncome tax Act, 1961. if you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being\nheard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on\nor before the date fixed for hearing on 29.12.2016 at 01:00PM which will be considered\nbefore such order (s) is/are made.\n12/16

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMIED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)© of the Act are initiated separately against the assessee in view of discussion in para 5. Words “and/or” have been used between the two limbs, pointing out to the fact that ld. AO himself was not aware which limb was to be invoked. 5. Ld. AO in the penalty order, dated 19.09.2013, in the first round

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 274 of the Act penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which is at page 216 of the paper book of the assessee and the AO failed to point out specific default for imposition of penalty i.e furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the act of the AO by not striking

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c), ld. AO has to apply his mind and come to a conclusion that whether the penalty is being levied for concealment of particulars of incomeORfurnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1.2. In the penalty proceedings, there is heavy onus on the ld. AO, initiating penalty, of proving the assessee firm guilty of concealment of income as penalty

AMAR BHARTI,JAIPUR vs. ASSTT.. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the A.Q. has service notice u/s.142(1) of the LT. Act. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) on various dated as per para 4 of this order, were served upon the assesse through Speed Post as well as through Notice Server. The appellant remains silent

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

282 CTR 205 (P&H) (DPB 22-25) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Failure of AO to initiate penalty proceedings—Where the CIT finds that the AO had not initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, he cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) in exercise of revisional power